89. Mrs. Flores de Tassino stated that, when she denounced those acts before the Joint Chiefs of Staff, she was informed that her husband had not been detained by military authorities, but had been summoned to appear since May 1, 1977 and should have reported to the Directorate of National Information and Intelligence of the Office of the Chief of Police of Montevideo. She indicated that there she received information only on another event, a prior detention of her husband that occurred in 1974.110 C.3.2. Investigation 90. On May 20, 1985, or in June of that year, Disnarda Flores filed a complaint alleging the disappearance and torture of her husband.111 The complaint asked that evidence be collected, testimony be received and that the Ministry of Defense be requested to provide the names of the officers and non-commissioned officers who were in charge of the operation of July 19, 1977.112 There is no record that those actions were undertaken. 91. On September 24, 1985, a conflict arose between the military and the ordinary jurisdictions.113 On February 16, 1987, the Supreme Court referred the case to the Tenth Criminal Court (with the clarification that it was the Ninth Criminal Court).114 92. On April 10, 1987, Disnarda Flores filed an action of unconstitutionality against Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Expiry Law, arguing that they violated the principles of the separation of powers, judicial independence, due process and the right to equality. 115 On August 10, 1988, the Supreme Court dismissed the action.116 93. On August 18, 1987, Ms. Flores requested the Tenth Criminal Court that it personally notify her of the administrative act of the Executive Branch on whether the complaint of the alleged disappearance and torture of Mr. Tassino Asteazu was included under the Expiry Law.117 On October 20, 1988, the judge of the Tenth Criminal Court Complaint of Disnarda Flores de Tassino regarding the disappearance of her husband (evidence file, annex 3(1) to the Merits Report fs. 970 to 982). 110 Complaint of Disnarda Flores de Tassino regarding the disappearance of her husband (evidence file, annex 3(1) to the Merits Report, fs. 970 to 982). According to the document, it was “received” on May 20, 1985 and was ordered sent “to the office” of the judicial authority on June 26. Despite this information, the Commission and the representative stated that the complaint was presented in June 1985. 111 Complaint of Disnarda Flores de Tassino regarding the disappearance of her husband (evidence file, annex 3(1) to the Merits Report, fs. 970 a 982). 112 The conflict arose because of the request to decline jurisdiction by the Third Military Court of Investigation to the Judge of the Ninth Criminal Court (cf. request to decline jurisdiction by the Third Military Court to the judge of the Ninth Criminal Court, of September 24, 1985 (evidence file, annex 3.2 to the Merits Report, fs. 983 to 989)). 113 114 Remittance by the Supreme Court to the Tenth Criminal Court regarding the case of the alleged disappearance and torture of Mr. Tassino Asteazu (evidence file, annex 3(8) to the Merits Report, fs. 1029 to 1033). Action of unconstitutionality regarding Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Law 15,848 filed by Disnarda Flores de Tassino (evidence file, annex 3(8) to the Merits Report, fs. 1034 to 1047). 115 Judgment of the Supreme Court of August 10, 1988 on the action of unconstitutionality filed by Disnarda Flores de Tassino (evidence file, annex 3(11) to the Merits Report, fs. 1074 to 1079). 116 Request of Disnarda Flores de Tassino to the Ninth Criminal Court of August 18, 1988 (evidence file, annex 3(12) to the Merits Report, fs. 1080 to 1083). 117 27